Archive for the 'Consumer Stuff' Tag Under 'OC Watchdog' Category

A program that encouraged thousands of California homeowners to install solar energy systems is under attack and could suffer crucial setbacks if one of the state's biggest utilities gets it way.

The reason: Utilities say their business model is suffering from residential solar installations.

The Edison Electric Institute, which lobbies on behalf of electric utilities across the nation, blames the solar energy net-metering program for harming utilities' revenue and goes so far as to compare the utilities' battle for relevance in energy distribution to the United States Postal Service's battle against private companies like FedEx.

Net energy metering is the system that allows residential and business customers that use solar energy to gain credit for extra energy produced by their solar panels as it flows back to the grid.

Power generated by consumer photovoltaic systems makes up just 1 percent of the power distributed in the state. (Wind, bio-gas and fuel-cell generation are also part of the net metering program but generate only a fraction of the power that solar does.)

In 2005, Atlanta-based EnerTech Environmental Inc. sold the Orange County Sanitation District and waste treatment plants from Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties on a way to turn their biosolids – it is what it sounds like – into clean-burning coal-like pellets.

But the Enertech plant in Rialto was closed for repairs more than it was open. And in October it went belly up with $150 million in debt and not nearly enough assets to cover the bill.

“This is a painful ‘oops,' a good idea that didn't work,” said Geoff Berman, with Development Specialties Inc., a Los Angeles company that is helping to liquidate the plant.

The Orange County Sanitation District dropped EnerTech in June, but not before spending $3.5 million more than it should have to get rid of its biosolid wastes, according to Jim Colston, the district's environmental compliance manager.

Southern California Edison's average residential customer can expect his bill to increase $7 per month, an 8 percent bump over current rates, based on the California Public Utilities Commission's decision last monthon a rate hike request that had been pending for most of the year.

Edison didn't get the full amount it asked for - $6.294 billion - but received $5.671 billion in revenue for the year 2013. In 2014 the average residential customer will be charged an additional $3.50 per month on his electric bill, said Lee-Whei Tan of the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates, which represents consumers.

Despite the fact that customers will have to pay more, consumer advocates say this is the first time in a while that regulators have said "no" to Edison.

The PUC sided with The Utility Reform Network, another consumer group, in denying Edison $26 million for executive bonuses. The regulators also said no to a costly electric vehicle infrastructure proposed by Edison.

The commission has not yet decided what to do about the costs and billing for Edison's shuttered nuclear power plant, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, ruling that a separate hearing will be necessary to decide whether to give customers a refund on the costs they have been charged to keep the SONGS plants afloat.

Recently, we told you about a Los Angeles-area ophthalmologist who believes HMOs are coercing poor, elderly and disabled Californians into enrolling for services by spreading falsehoods about a new state proposal that would affect patients eligible for both Medi-Cal and Medicare in eight counties, including Orange.

In light of the doctor's allegations, one professional association that has opposed the state's plan is urging the federal government to not only investigate but also amend the California proposal. The feds say they're looking into the matter, but the association believes more must be done.

The conflict boils down to a single issue: California state government wants to enroll 627,000 "dual eligible" patients into managed care to save money. Patients who qualify for Medi-Cal and Medicare are, by definition, low-income and elderly. They also tend to be immigrants and/or non-English speakers.

The state's proposal calls for these vulnerable patients to be automatically enrolled into managed care for at least six months unless they specifically ask to opt out. For months, doctors have said this "passive enrollment" strategy is cruel, because these patients won't understand the significance of their enrollment. When you join a managed care plan, often times you have to change doctors.

The defendants, Najia Jalan (also known as Sarah Johnson, Sarah St. John and Sarah Kim) and Richard K. Nelson, both of Costa Mesa, and National Legal Help Center, are alleged to have charged advance fees of $1,000 to $3,000 – and in some cases close to $10,000 – for loan modification services. That's a violation of both federal and state law.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order and appointed a temporary receiver last week.

The bureau said it believes the loan modification shop advertised in all 50 states.

The defendants operated 165 Web addresses, many of which mimicked federal housing relief programs. For example, the defendants operated a site at makinghomeaffordable.ca that was, until it was shut down by the recent court order, virtually identical to the official government site at makinghomeaffordable.gov, according to the lawsuit.

The embattled owner of four Orange County hospitals has been fined $95,000 by the state for breeching a patient's privacy in an effort to rebut a news article about the chain's unusual and lucrative billing practices.

The Department of Public Health fined Shasta Regional Medical Center in Redding earlier this month after the patient's medical records were disclosed without consent to three news agencies as well as hospital employees. The hospital is owned by Ontario-based Prime Healthcare Services.

Darlene Courtois, a Medicare patient, says she had never heard of kwashiorkor, a severe form of malnutrition. But federal records show her hospital billed Medicare for treating her for the condition. (Photo by California Watch)

Prime did not respond to requests for comment Thursday but in a response filed with the state, hospital officials said they “did not agree with the findings.”

This spring, Marybeth and Gary Jacobsen bought a 2013 Hyundai Elantra from a dealership in Anaheim for their daughter. Kameron Jacobsen drives to Cal State Fullerton from South County and since she pays for her own gas, the 40 mpg highway advertised for the Elantra "seemed like the perfect match," Marybeth recalled.

But right away, Kameron noticed that her car was not coming close to the mileage on the EPA sticker that came on the window. She was recording numbers in the mid-20s and never even managed to average 30. The Jacobsens called the dealership to complain and were told to bring in the car for a checkup.

"The man came back and said everything was fine and she must be driving it the wrong way," Marybeth recalled. "They were very rude to her and dismissed her reporting of the problem. ... They would not even listen to her anymore and said they could do nothing for her.

Did Wells Fargo Bank and the Orange County Sheriff mercilessly evict a terminally ill cancer patient from her Garden Grove home at gunpoint last month, despite a court order to the contrary?

That's how it seemed when Niko Black and her attorneys told her story to The Register last week; it's definitely how the OC Weekly and the Huffington Postwrote it up.

But interviews, court documents and court testimony this week show that the case is much more complicated than it first appeared.

Niko Black outside the Garden Grove home from which she was evicted. Photo by Christine Cotter, The Orange County Register

What everyone can agree on is that Wells Fargo, accompanied by sheriff's deputies, evicted Black from her home on Oct. 10. Also clear is that Black at one point had received a stay from U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which the bank and the deputies ignored.

Aimee Larson of Irvine is in danger of losing her condo. But she says she hasn't missed a payment and her finances are stable.

Her problem? She started renting out the property.

You see, Larson's lender is the California Housing Finance Agency, an entity in state government with strict owner-occupancy rules. Last year, CalHFA was blasted by the California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes for foreclosing on homeowners who no longer live in their homes, even when they were current on their mortgage payments.

At the time, CalHFA said it had to foreclose on the homes because its mortgages are underwritten by tax-exempt bonds and Internal Revenue Service rules precludes borrowers under those circumstances to use their properties as investments or rentals. A Senate investigator, however, found that other states aren't nearly strict. His report concluded that CalHFA's policy was gratuitous.

"These borrowers want to rent out their CalHFA-financed homes because of a change in life circumstances, such as getting married or having children," wrote Senate investigator John Hill, a former Sacramento Bee reporter. "In a normal real estate market, they would have sold their houses or condos and paid off their mortgages. Selling now means severe losses. Instead, they hope to lease out their residences until the housing market begins to recover."

The reward: $50,000 cold, hard cash and the thanks of a grateful nation.

The Federal Trade Commission, keeper of the National Do Not Call list, is tired of being ignored. Really tired. So tired that it has posted a $50,000 reward for anyone who can develop an effective way to block robocalls from boiler rooms such as the ever-unpopular "Rachel from Cardholder Services."

A commercial robocall is recorded and usually unsolicited. The vast majority are unwanted and frequently deceptive, the FTC said. Under the agency's telemarketing sales rule, robocalls are illegal unless the recipient has given the caller prior written permission.

Apparently lawsuits are not enough to stop them. The FTC has sued dozens of robocallers. The toll so far: $69 million in fines against 250 corporationsand 194 individuals nationwide.